Do you think feminism has been a net positive or net negative for relationships?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

If we reimbursed SAHP’s to prevent their abuse I’d agree. But since they’re dependents, I consider SAHP’s (of either gender) a net negative for society. If we started a federal program to support them, and/or when SAHP’s have wealth independent of the marriage, they can play a positive role.

SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.

I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.

The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.

Thats not true— we just want it to be.

A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.

The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.

When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True feminism has been a positive.
The " feminism" of the last decade is a negative.

What do you mean by "the feminism of the last decade"?

The everything is mens fault brand of feminism,

Come back when your gripes make into policy or law.

Like men getting longer sentences for committing the same crimes?

You should do some research. Men often get substantially lighter sentences for assaulting and killing women than women get for killing their abusers.

DP and the one he initially responded to. It's also not a matter of law or policy, so his argument is moot even though it's very inaccurate.

Just like the gender pay disparity right?

Well luckily, we have data on that as well. And agian, you're full of shit.

IT is telling, though that when you're called out on your BS you just pivot to a different subject. Why is that?

As a matter of law and policy? Let's see it. Woosh, the point went right over your head. You want different standards on what constitutes "law and policy" for different disparities. A literal sentencing disparity does not count as "law and policy" in your world. Why? Because you're a biased hypocrite.

Oh FFS. One, you can't stay on the subject. Two, MEN created the pay disparity. They simply didn't feel that women needed to earn as much since their husbands were the main providers for their family. Nothing imagined or made up about it. We have decades of data. Men like you still moan about the fact that women now demand to be paid the same as their male counterparts. But sure, minimum wage is the same for both genders as a matter of law. Thank a fellow Democrat for that.

Secondly, you keep harping on sentencing disparities, but you're just wrong. It DOES NOT HAPPEN. It's not hypocritical to tell you your statement is not supported by facts. SOOOOO if it's not TRUE in either law or policy OR practice, it's time for you to drop your ignorant argument.

You can't just declare things, goofy. I posted a source, you posted your fee fees.

Oh I see your source now....bahahahahahahhaa

You posted one working paper and think you've uncovered the holy grail. Silly really.

Ah right, let's go with your fee fees.

No idea what fees fees are. Perhaps more made-up stuff from you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One argument against feminism is that it has damaged the family structure. By getting rid of traditional gender roles, it has caused confusion about roles, placed unrealistic expectations on women, and pushed men away, all while prioritizing personal goals over family stability.

I'm happy to trend the garden if DH wants to hunt our dinner

We actually decided that to avoid stress of two full time careers while raising kids. It worked wonderfully for everybody's mental health and quality of life. However, may be less than 25% of couples have that kind of devotion, flexibility and kindness with favorable financial circumstances to do that. Certainly not an option where both are ambitious or materialistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't know, don't care. I have no time or energy for a relationship with someone who does not consider me his equal.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women have almost always worked outside the home. Took in washing and farmer and did kitchen gardens and made cheese to sell etc etc. They just couldn't own land or have their own assets and money and had to have men as heads of household (husbands or fathers or brothers). Women who can earn their own living are "dangerous" as they won't be subjugated to men's desires and birth control means they can have children on their own timeline.

Prophet Mohammed was sent to a wet nurse in a village as this was a common practice for well off families at that time as well.
While this is true, they rarely had jobs that kept them out of the house 40 hours a week. Men had FT jobs out of the house and women did not. Daycares didn’t even exist and life expectancy was lower so no, grandparents weren’t providing 40 hours a week of childcare.

In my opinion, feminism cost women friendships and communities. Women are now not home most of the time. Most women in my affluent suburban neighborhood have few friends. The new norm is keeping up with friends from earlier in life electronically but not having friends to spend time with on a daily or weekly basis. We work, use the internet and if we are lucky have a hobby.

Childcare was absolutely a thing. Plenty of women made money "keeping" other people's kids for the workday. And women have always worked outside their own home - most commonly in someone else's home, but sometimes in shops or eating establishments and later in factories. It's simply not true that women have been at home throughout history.

Yes, google the practice of wet nursing in the 18th Century. Around half of all babies born were sent out of Paris at the time to be with wet nurses. This happened across all classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism brought women choices, so they didn't have to stay in abusive marriages, could own property, have any job (not just nurses and teachers), and the ability to choose to have a baby or not: the same rights white men have always had.

100% positive

all that happened before feminism.

Female children were sometimes killed at birth, not get inheritance, not get right to divorce, alimony or child support. In Arab, Islam changed that.

[Anonymous]

Feminism is 100% net positive but feminists aren't all positive people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

If we reimbursed SAHP’s to prevent their abuse I’d agree. But since they’re dependents, I consider SAHP’s (of either gender) a net negative for society. If we started a federal program to support them, and/or when SAHP’s have wealth independent of the marriage, they can play a positive role.

SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.

I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.

The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.

Thats not true— we just want it to be.

A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.

The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.

When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.

There is a net positive financial contribution, it's the lack of a negative on the budget spreadsheet. All the things you don't pay for are due to a contribution of labor by the nonearning spouse. Like in any partnership, you can have capital contributing partners and sweat equity partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

If we reimbursed SAHP’s to prevent their abuse I’d agree. But since they’re dependents, I consider SAHP’s (of either gender) a net negative for society. If we started a federal program to support them, and/or when SAHP’s have wealth independent of the marriage, they can play a positive role.

SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.

I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.

The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.

Thats not true— we just want it to be.

A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.

The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.

When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.

There is a net positive financial contribution, it's the lack of a negative on the budget spreadsheet. All the things you don't pay for are due to a contribution of labor by the nonearning spouse. Like in any partnership, you can have capital contributing partners and sweat equity partners.

Again, I don't doubt SAHP’s can make positive contributions to their families.
To U.S. society the existence of adult dependents is a net negative because of the abuse it enables. We should have social payments like social security and disability to SAHPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

If we reimbursed SAHP’s to prevent their abuse I’d agree. But since they’re dependents, I consider SAHP’s (of either gender) a net negative for society. If we started a federal program to support them, and/or when SAHP’s have wealth independent of the marriage, they can play a positive role.

SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.

I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.

The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.

Thats not true— we just want it to be.

A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.

The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.

When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.

There is a net positive financial contribution, it's the lack of a negative on the budget spreadsheet. All the things you don't pay for are due to a contribution of labor by the nonearning spouse. Like in any partnership, you can have capital contributing partners and sweat equity partners.

That “sweat equity” doesn’t let the dependent spouse touch a single penny without the permission of the earning spouse. A bank won’t give him a penny from her account, not even if there’s not a can of soup in the house to feed their kids and he’s a billionaire. That is the net negative to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

If we reimbursed SAHP’s to prevent their abuse I’d agree. But since they’re dependents, I consider SAHP’s (of either gender) a net negative for society. If we started a federal program to support them, and/or when SAHP’s have wealth independent of the marriage, they can play a positive role.

SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.

I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.

The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.

Thats not true— we just want it to be.

A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.

The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.

When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.

So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True feminism has been a positive.
The " feminism" of the last decade is a negative.

What do you mean by "the feminism of the last decade"?

The everything is mens fault brand of feminism,

I fault the influence of postmodernist thought for a lot of this. It leads away from a quest for equality and toward a focus on power struggles. Less collaboration, more antagonism among everyone concerned.

Precisely.

It also distracts from getting any real change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feminism brought women choices, so they didn't have to stay in abusive marriages, could own property, have any job (not just nurses and teachers), and the ability to choose to have a baby or not: the same rights white men have always had.

100% positive

all that happened before feminism.

Female children were sometimes killed at birth, not get inheritance, not get right to divorce, alimony or child support. In Arab, Islam changed that.

This is still happening in certain parts of the world - India has a significant issue with infanticide nearly always female infants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True feminism has been a positive.
The " feminism" of the last decade is a negative.

What do you mean by "the feminism of the last decade"?

The everything is mens fault brand of feminism,

Come back when your gripes make into policy or law.

Like men getting longer sentences for committing the same crimes?

You should do some research. Men often get substantially lighter sentences for assaulting and killing women than women get for killing their abusers.

DP and the one he initially responded to. It's also not a matter of law or policy, so his argument is moot even though it's very inaccurate.

Just like the gender pay disparity right?

Well luckily, we have data on that as well. And agian, you're full of shit.

IT is telling, though that when you're called out on your BS you just pivot to a different subject. Why is that?

As a matter of law and policy? Let's see it. Woosh, the point went right over your head. You want different standards on what constitutes "law and policy" for different disparities. A literal sentencing disparity does not count as "law and policy" in your world. Why? Because you're a biased hypocrite.

Oh FFS. One, you can't stay on the subject. Two, MEN created the pay disparity. They simply didn't feel that women needed to earn as much since their husbands were the main providers for their family. Nothing imagined or made up about it. We have decades of data. Men like you still moan about the fact that women now demand to be paid the same as their male counterparts. But sure, minimum wage is the same for both genders as a matter of law. Thank a fellow Democrat for that.

Secondly, you keep harping on sentencing disparities, but you're just wrong. It DOES NOT HAPPEN. It's not hypocritical to tell you your statement is not supported by facts. SOOOOO if it's not TRUE in either law or policy OR practice, it's time for you to drop your ignorant argument.

You can't just declare things, goofy. I posted a source, you posted your fee fees.

Oh I see your source now....bahahahahahahhaa

You posted one working paper and think you've uncovered the holy grail. Silly really.

Ah right, let's go with your fee fees.

No idea what fees fees are. Perhaps more made-up stuff from you.

I means you hand wave away things that are inconvenient for whatever little biased narrative you've built in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:True feminism has been a positive.
The " feminism" of the last decade is a negative.

What do you mean by "the feminism of the last decade"?

The everything is mens fault brand of feminism,

Come back when your gripes make into policy or law.

Like men getting longer sentences for committing the same crimes?

You should do some research. Men often get substantially lighter sentences for assaulting and killing women than women get for killing their abusers.

DP and the one he initially responded to. It's also not a matter of law or policy, so his argument is moot even though it's very inaccurate.

Just like the gender pay disparity right?

Well luckily, we have data on that as well. And agian, you're full of shit.

IT is telling, though that when you're called out on your BS you just pivot to a different subject. Why is that?

As a matter of law and policy? Let's see it. Woosh, the point went right over your head. You want different standards on what constitutes "law and policy" for different disparities. A literal sentencing disparity does not count as "law and policy" in your world. Why? Because you're a biased hypocrite.

Oh FFS. One, you can't stay on the subject. Two, MEN created the pay disparity. They simply didn't feel that women needed to earn as much since their husbands were the main providers for their family. Nothing imagined or made up about it. We have decades of data. Men like you still moan about the fact that women now demand to be paid the same as their male counterparts. But sure, minimum wage is the same for both genders as a matter of law. Thank a fellow Democrat for that.

Secondly, you keep harping on sentencing disparities, but you're just wrong. It DOES NOT HAPPEN. It's not hypocritical to tell you your statement is not supported by facts. SOOOOO if it's not TRUE in either law or policy OR practice, it's time for you to drop your ignorant argument.

You can't just declare things, goofy. I posted a source, you posted your fee fees.

Oh I see your source now....bahahahahahahhaa

You posted one working paper and think you've uncovered the holy grail. Silly really.

Ah right, let's go with your fee fees.

No idea what fees fees are. Perhaps more made-up stuff from you.

I means you hand wave away things that are inconvenient for whatever little biased narrative you've built in your head.

if you were succesful in proving your point, it wouldn't be an issue. but you latched on to that one working paper like it's some kind of authority and mock decades of data that prove you wrong. But like any good misogynist, you're not swayed by facts.